Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposed locations are 4 ICCAs in the Philippines with significant intact forest landscapes and key biodiversity areas.
Evidence B:4 distinct areas are included, each geographically different, different biodiversity explanations. high values across all
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The applicant does not explain the potential of carbon stock in the proposed locations. Information from geospatial data indicated moderate carbon density in the proposed locations.
Evidence B:Moderate to high across the areas. Marine and coastal higher than interior
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: All of the proposed locations are maintaining by strong IPLCs because these locations are under the status of the ancestral domain of indigenous peoples in the Philippines. However, governance system has been mixed between traditional and modern governance system.
Evidence B:each area has acknowledged rights - ancestral domains and rights of management, overlaps with protected areas are there, ICCA declaration is present in every site
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The applicant stated the significance of the proposed location but it is vaguely described in the answer to question 2.
Evidence B:great - again across each of the 4 sites
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The proposed locations encounter high development pressure and land deals, and moderate forest change. The main threats come from mining concessions, hydroelectric dam, and the construction of roads.
Evidence B:Migration from outside, population pressures internally, loss of knowledge systems - key threats identified
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The legal and policy frameworks in the Philippines actively promoted the recognition of indigenous peoples’ land rights. It includes the constitution and the special law on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). Many indigenous peoples’ territory have been designated by the government as ancestral domain lands, including the proposed locations.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The national and sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC-led conservation. The Philippines Congres enacted the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS), which promotes the protection of native plants and animals through the establishment of comprehensive system of integrated protected areas.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The applicant described two successful IPLC-led conservation in the proposed location. The first is the sacred forest of Talaandig in the Mt. Kalatungan Range which has resulted in the establishment of Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) and the second is the traditional forest resource management of the Ikalahan which has been recognized by the Philippines government as the main driver for the conservation of the forest in the Palali Mamparang Range.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The applicant listed three projects that are potentially co-financing the proposed activities, These projects are strongly aligned with the proposed activities.
Evidence B:NewCAPP and PICCA projects well described, same areas, strongly aligned with this.
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed project is well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI because this proposal is designed by indigenous peoples organization and the proposed activities are directed to enhance IPs effort to steward the land and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits.
Evidence B:implementing existing community conservation plans - really very well aligned, my hesitation is that significant investment has already come into these sights, so ‘enhance’ is harder to show
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Activities are well-defined and cohesive and results are specific and practical for improving the IPLC-led conservation programs.
Evidence B:strong design, restoration as well as conservation, territorial scope of planning
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The activities are contributing to addressing threats to the proposed locations.
Evidence B:Livelihoods are addressed, but not migration pressures. Internal loss of knowledge systems is addressed.
Evidence C:The project activities have a missing link to wards addressing the threats identified, perhaps there is a need to address national scale actions involving a broader range of stakeholders
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The proposed activities are exceptionally aligned wit the EoI range of investment
Evidence B:yes
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The applicant stated potential co-financing of the proposed activities from past projects, NGO partners, and local government units.
Evidence B:community and government, hoped-for continued NGO support.
Evidence C:Co-financing will need to be confirmed if the proposal proceeds to the next stage
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The applicant estimates around 300.000 ha area for the proposed projects and around 34.324 individuals are expected to beneficiaries fo the proposed projects
Evidence B:approx / at least 180k ha
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The applicant clearly described cultural and livelihood indicators to measure the result fo the proposed project.
Evidence B:yes, across both cultural and livelihood.
Evidence C:Indicators can be reduced for the purposes of monitoring
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposed activities clearly promoted a long term-sustainability for IPLC-led conservation.
Evidence B:interesting ideas presented for sustainability, certainly medium term, but on-going funding likely to be needed
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The applicant has indicated that the proposed project is strongly aligned with the Philippines Biodiversity Sustainable Action Plan (PBSAP) 2015-2028.
Evidence B:Focuses on support for the Land Use Zoning
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The applicant clearly described the role of women in the communities, especially as a healer and a key actor in environmental protection. Women will also include in decision making and implementation of the proposed program.
Evidence B:linked to knowledge preservation and teaching, and to leadership roles at community level.
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The proposed project is located in strong IPLC-led conservation. Therefore, this project is beyond a pilot project, but this project is intended to create a robust example for successful and sustainable IPLC-lde conservation that can be used as a model for IPLC-led conservation in the counry and region.
Evidence B:clearly strong national networks between ICCAs could increase scale
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The applicant is an indigenous peoples organization and the proposed projects is lead by indigenous experiences and demands from the grassroots level.
Evidence B:some NGOs in support roles, leadership clearly IPLC, including community/ancestral domain level ownership
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The applicant has demonstrated exceptional and long-standing leadership to the proposed work because the applicant is an indigenous peoples organization that has long experience in promoting IPLC-led conservation in the proposed locations.
Evidence B:yes
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The applicant has demonstrated a strong IPLC governance system and a strong connection to NGOs and local government in proposed project locations.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The applicant has the skills and experience to implement the proposed activities and has past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence B:This project would be larger than those before. capacity support needed perhaps. extremely strong capacity on content (ICCA support) only hesitation is on financial sude
Evidence C:The proposal puts for GEF project experience so the score is reflects that. The proposal does not, however put forward information on administrative and fiduciary technical capacity so there is no way to judge this. Note that the largest funds to date noted in the proposal is 10% of the proposed funding being sought. Fiduciary capacity needs to be addressed, gaps filled where necessary and confirmed in the succeeding stages.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The applicant has an annual budget for USD 100.000 and has been implementing some small projects from more than 5 donor agencies. This indicated that the applicant requires support to implement a bigger project with a total sponsor of more than USD 200.000
Evidence B:Some support would be needed
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The applicant was the local responsible partner of the ICCA Project funded by the GEF and co-implemented with UNDP and DENR of the Philippines.
Evidence B:implemented GEF funded projects before, but not directly (via UNDP)
Evidence C:Project implementation is not equivalent to safeguards experience. While the social safeguards may reasonably be presumed to be met under the design of the project, environmental safeguards need to also be taken into account (e.g. those addressing potential impacts from infrastructure development - e.g. maintenance of schools and sites; confirming that there is no impacts from use of pesticides etc).